Allowed

Narinderjit Singh @ Shakti v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CRM-M/1099/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Considering that an extra judicial confession was the sole evidence and the trial was not likely to conclude soon, the petition was allowed and the petitioner ordered released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted bail during pendency of trial subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate.

Narinderjit Singh @ Shakti Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-1099 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-1099 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.05.2013

¶5

Narinderjit Singh alias Shakti

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.129 dated 31.07.2009 under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this is a case based on the circumstantial evidence, except for extra judicial confession made before one Harchand Singh, who is the real Massar of the deceased-Gurinder Singh, no other evidence is available against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence specifically, when it is made before a relative of the deceased.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State does not deny this fact that till date only one witness has been examined and only evidence against the petitioner is extra judicial confession.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 29.08.2009 and trial is likely to take some time to

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-1099 of 2013

¶18

-2-

¶19

conclude.

¶20

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case only extra judicial confession being evidence against the petitioner and the fact that trial is not likely to be concluded in near future, the petitioner can be granted concession of bail.

¶21

Without going into the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

¶22

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶23

May 28, 2013 R.S.

Narinderjit Singh @ Shakti v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narinderjit Singh @ Shakti v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Vs Deepak Khunger

Achhru Ram Vs State of Punjab

Kashmir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Aalam Vs State of Haryana & Anr.

Bhim Sain Vs State of Punjab

Rosy and Ors. Vs State of Punjab